so for all those reasons, his paper and his argument deserve respect. obviously, i am here not to praise him but to try to stick in the night if i can. . basic thesis, which is to draw an antithesis between the country class and the ruling class -- the anti-government symptoms of the country and the elitist alien sentiments of a unelected bureaucracy is one i find unconvincing, both as an account of our politics today and our constitutional politics do well american history. i would like to try to persuade you that i am right and he is wrong. [laughter]

professor codevilla yet argues that the country class, which the debate -- which he equates with the majority of americans, -- the ruling class says the constitution must help the government do good rather than restraint it. he says that the ruling class got up and running during the progressive era. they began to impose rulings on the country class and the courts. he argues that to date this ruling class, elite this mentality raines not only in the obama administration, but also on the supreme court he says that the country-class needs to reinstate the founder's vision of limited government. i want to begin by noting this

inconsistent attitude towards judicially imposed limits on power. at his court, he criticizes the court repeatedly for not imposing boundaries on government power that he believes the founders would have insisted on. he wants to it -- he was the court to strike down naked body scanners, unconstitutional king of property, and affirmative action. those are just some examples. all of these measures were passed by the democratically elected legislators or regulatory agencies. most of them are extremely popular. let's begin with the body scanners. i was cheering professor kennedy on what i heard him say that the founders would have been appalled at being felt-up at the airport. decisions apoving a similar

technologies are hardly an elitist conspiracy. the body scanners were popular with 80% of the country when you talk about populist hees, that immortal objection, unk," rates upmy jo there with "give me liberty or give me death." decisions striking down campaign finance reform was unpopular with 80% of the country, democratic and republican. when it comes to affirmative action, it is a complicated question. their responses vary depending on how the questions a asked. the country is evenly divided.

there is no question that parts of the program the court has struck down have been popular with some majorities. in all these cases could via is calling up -- codevilla is calling on the courts to strike them down although they are popular. this is not a surprise. when you measure anti-government sentiment in this country, his papers suggest that two-thirds of the country is on the side of smaller government and free enterprise. i do not find these numbers convincing. the "new york times" has noted that the line it runs too many hearts.art

the most reliable poll i have found to measure anti-government sentiment was courted by that former libertarian, john ashcroft. when he was attorney general he defended the patriot act. he suggested that half the country thought the patriot act struck the right balance. one-third of the country thought it did not go far enough. only one-third thought it went too far. that third, which ashcroft called a small but vocal minority, is comprised of libertarian conservatives, to professor codevilla describes as elitist, but also liberals. that combination of elitists and

conservatives are definitely a minority. they do not constitute a majority sentiment. it is extremely hard to paint the anti-government side as a representative majority of this country. that is why the patriot at only ct only had one dissenting vote. i think that is a basic analysis. when it comes to the court, they held forhe most other history been a majority body. they have not been out of step with public opinion. on the rare occasions when they try to oppose an alien vision, it is the backlash's that have led to some kind of judicial retreat. when did the court get out of

step with the public? interestingly, in the gilded age, in the progressive area -- progressive era, in the new-deal age. the court first strikes down the income tax, provoking a populist movement and a constitutional amendment approving the and contacts. this and erase the progressive movement. in 898 there was no constituency for progressive legislation. in the 1912 election, the cur of bigness and opposition to the banks and determination to break th up was a matter of bipartisan consensus.

it was a political movement that was mobilized and national sentiment had been transformed. professor codevilla tries to distinguish between theodore roosevelt and franklin roosevelt. many of the judgments may have been mistaken, but they came to them. roosevelt was more of a centralized. he wanted regulator -- regulated banks. wilson wanted banks regulated by the states. both wilson and roosevelt were united in their optimism -- opposition to judicial -- progressives of that era elite political change should come from the legislature and courts should get out of the way.

it was built as a conservative court in the 1920's and 1930's. they struck down the new-deal. it boiled up in the mid-1930's. they challenge the heart of roosevelts national recovery administration. it causean uproar and threats from the president and congress. the court, ultimately, retreated and upheld the loss. between 1937 and 1995, the court did not strike down a single wer referring to congress' to setnterstate lost. it was when the court embraced the decision of conservative activism that it was most a odds with the majority of the country. it was discredited. it is a complicated picture.

professor codevilla is not in favor of judicial activism. he says there are countless essences in which -- in which the court nullified decisions citing constitutional mandates. the court claimed exclusive right to interpret the constitution. i share professor codevilla thoughts on the views of the court as the exclusive authority of the prostitution regardless of the views of the president and the people. i am not a fan of reverses weighed, but i have to say that the problem is not a failure.

the right to privacy is not in the constitution. professor kennedy it says the right to property is in the constition. was wrong, it scott reminds us that there is a clash. the views of the original state where mischaracterized what it came to free african-americans. to claim that all you have to do is read the documents, there is an opposition between those who believe the constitution means what it says and those to think that it does not. it has no connection to any serious constitutional debate. these are not debates about the meaning of the tax. they are debates about the will of the people. dred scott was popular with the incoming democratic president and congress. the court found that both parties were begging for

additional resolution. the were still a narrow national majority that favored a judicial move rather tn a judicial move. the connection between the court and public opinion is meaningful. it is not a failure of textualism. we can debate these other questions if you like, but to say that the established ment clause can be settled just by reading the text, it is simplistic. it is true that my forite teacher from law school agrees with professor codevilla and 70 party constitutionalist that the establishment clause was meant to protect state establishment, but there is no consensus on the contemporary meaning of that. justice clarence thomas says states should be free to promote religi as long as they do not promote a particular religion.

it was really a vision of religious neutrality that was intended. religious a permissivism cannot be reconciled with the views of madison or anyone else. these are historical questions about which there are disagreements on each side. they cannot be reconciled by simplistic readings of the tax. the truth is, suprematism is rhetoricmbraced by justices on both sides of the political spectrum. in a sense we are all supremacist now. in theis no wione tradition -- in that tradition.

on the rehnquist court, the justices to shutdown state laws were breyer and ginsburg. what about the roberts court? i want to distinguish between three separate strands of judicial conservatism that are fighting in the courts and the political culture today. they vastly complicate the picture, suggesting that a simplistic opposition between those who believed the constitution to belize what it says and those who do not does not do justice to the political debate. these three divisions are the tea party and costa to solis, the libertarians, and the conservatives. who are the key party and cotitutionalists? the supreme court has oy one acolyte. that is justice clarence thomas.

he combines anti federalism and opposition to the elite. he had these views before the tea party was up and running. he is the model 40 party justice. tea party justice. it is significant that to learn that professor codevilla had not learned of them. i read about him in the new york times. because additional source cited at the party rallies is the one they weighed on the mall when they marched at tea party rallies. his views are the most consistent with the tea party leadership.;

stella says most federal regulatory systems are unconstitutional -- scalia says most federal regulatory systems are unconstitutional. he argues that the 16th and 17th amdments should be repealed. he says that social security is a form of unconstitutional wealth redistribution. the founders only authorized the government to protect equal rights. there is substantively a great overlap between much of this khalil's decisions and the decision that professor codevilla get endorses. it would lead to a radical increase in judicial activism, striking down most of the

regulatory state. it is something none on the court, except for justice thomas, what to entertain. the tea party is at odds with the other two conservative visions. the first this the second legal movement -- liberrianism. its leaders or my friends at the cato institute. unlike the tea party people, the libertarians are pro-choice and pro gay marriage. they also support judicial activism to strike down unconstitutional regulations. i suppose that the libertarian hero would be, not justice thomas, would be a judge like judge douglas ginsburg on the u.s. court of appeals, nominate

for the supreme court in the 1980's. ps call for a resurrection of what he calls a constitution in exile. justice ginsberg wrote a wonderful decision striking down global positioning devices that are placed under cars and can attract people. he does not -- he does not like body scanners either. he is not a religious conservative in any significant way. the third category, very much at odds with the otherwo, or pro-business conservatives. they are led by the u.s. chamber of commerce. the chamber has done remarkably well. they have won 13 out of 18 cases in which they filed briefs recently. this is not a surprise. both justice roberts and justice alito worked for the commerce when they were advocates. they promoted anonymity.

the business decisions were more often than not unanimous. most of them were decided in a pro-business direction. the spread-business conservatives are very much at odds with the libertarian and the tea party people. they saw the failure of the banks as an existential threat. they are willing to use doctrines like federal pre- emption, which are doctrines that prode international rules to support state rights. we see clashes between the pro- business conservatives and the tea party people in the next

congress over questions like farm subsidies and we will also see that clashed working itself out on the supreme court when it hears the health care cases, perhaps as early as next year. we were talking about whether the court will strike down health care. we are not often that about that. we'll talk more about it in a bit. previously, the conservatives on the roberts crt have rejected this vision that leads to the invalidation of health care. roberts and alito -- i am not holding my breath. all the other hand, the courts

do all the election returns. the court is more likely to look skeptically at the health care challenge now than it was before november 2. i want to close by saying that, like codevilla, the tea party conservatives or try to have it both ways. if they want to rely on and in blood -- on unelected judges. it is the kind of conservative activism that got conservatives in trouble in the new-still era. you can igor -- you can even call it in the disk. -- you can even call it eletist. i would like to end by noting that rather than bashing progresses for their elitism, professor codevilla may find common ground i -- with progresses in their opposition to the wall street mentality

that led t the crash of 2007. there are oppositions to the "curse of biggest." a progressive movement has been called in opposition to t dangers of corporate business and the anger about money in corporate politics. we see a strong overlap in that vision and the tea party vision, which is populist at its core. if the two divisions might find a common hero, i would like to suggest might own a hero. he remarkably unites the strands that professor codevilla was to insist are incompatible. the is an advocate of states' rights and judicial restraint. he was a constitutionalist you want to apply the 4 commitment to new technologies.

-- when it to the west -- he was a constitutionalist who wanted to app the fourth amendment to new technologies. what professor codevilla was to make this implicit opposition between reading the docent and ignoring the words, he transcended that opposition. he was both an been original less -- he was both an original and a living constitution advocate. as he put it, if we are guided

by the light of reason, we must remind people. thank you very much. >> thank you, and jeffrey. i think professor could be it may have a response or two. we let these two gentlemen at a quick back and forth. let me know if you have a question and i will write your name down. >> i think we were a lot closer on -- in regards to public possible policy -- in regard to public policy that we are on t constitution. i can be quite creative. a lot full t of people can be. -- an awful lot of people can be. there is opposition to the corporate corruption, which is now the standard of american big business.

all of that kind that makes sense, but my fundamental question is by what right? the only thing i resent in your description of me is the notion that i am somehow inconsistent by not supporting the striking down of laws passed by a popular majority. there is no consistency -- there is no inconsistency there at all. like most americans, like most people who believe in the constitution, i am and advocate whichguery vs. madison,

makes perfect sense. if you're a big conflict between the constitution and the statute, then that is that. however, there is a big difference between striking marbury and ala striking down tanks because we do not like them. the notion that the court simply likes and dislikes pains because they are in tune with the culture at the time is certainly partially true. no doubt about that. there is a term in constitutional law for that. it is called "locknering." the court lockners all the time.

it sometimes leads popular perversions and further perverts the people. to suggest that the majority of the people or rate repository of wisdom -- they do have the right to have its as they wished. -- as they wish. the constitution's words have to presumptively roll over -- rule over sentiment. do we have sadists on the court?

is still galea a -- is scalia a statist? of course. he was all for it because the government wanted it. is there perfect consistency out there? heavens no. there are two separate sets of considerations here. one is a substantive policy and the other is the law -- the all being the basic deal. you get away from the basic deal and you risk the most important thing all all which is the

people to ask "why should i obey?" if you risk that you are sking everything. roosevelt and wilson agreed on a whole bunch of policies. my point is that they came at these decisions from a different basis. they did agree on a whole bunch of things. but for very different reasons. well, i will leave it at. >> a quick response. >> it is to distinguish between policy and legal plate spreads via -- points.

>> i'm not a libertarian. >> i know. we converge around the body scanner. my wife ent through one of the secondary path down and told the guard that they would have to get her a cigarette. [laughter] >> my wife would have kicked them. >> the majority of americans do not agree with us. to the degree that you consistently make claims about what they believe, it will not work. if the majority of americans cannot distinguish between the

nine justices any more than they warves.se seven dori it all comes down to this. >> define the term. >> you support it. it w the decision in 1903 that struck down minimum wage -- maximum our mall -- hour laws. the supreme crt struck that down and said liberty of contract is a constitutional right.

there were too famous dissent -- two famous dissents. oliver wendell holmes said it did not involve the social statics. there were contested use of the country. his point was when people of good faith could disagree, judges should defer to the legislature. he said the problem was a failure of pessimism. he said people ofood faith may think baking is an unhealthy obsession predel. it is all about reading rights.

that was not the proem. the problem was the country was divided about the law as a fair system -- lies a fair -- laissez faire system. that is why i think you are an enthusiastic [unintelligible] you want a dramatic increase. .> i did not say that pdel i said nothing of the kind. these are the kinds of decisions it had to be made through political practice and not by

the court. >> should the courts stri down health care reform? >> yes. but on a plane and sexual grounds -- plain, textual grounds. >> that makes the point. it is not written down. that is not been the consensus since 1937. >> suggest to you that the consensus is wrong. this is a fact. you have millions of people out there who take that as common sense. if it ain't there, it is not there. >> i understand.

this has gotten the court into more trouble than it has ever gotten into in history. >> i do not particularly care where the court is a countrtrout the country. >> the supreme court struck down income-tax and minimum wage laws. you begin to see a pattern emerging. the course to be very hesitant -- court should be very hesitant. >> if you liked the nra, then pass the amendment that allows you to set up these so-called independent agencies. with regard to be epa, it is

where it gets the power. what allows you to have something that has judicial, legislative, and it to death powder -- and adjuctive power at the same town? scalia agrees with me. >> you both agree to get there. -- together. >> the only thing i know about it is what you told me. >> is a remarkable display of aggressive power. >> it is the opposite. reading is not an aggressive act. reading is not an act of

aggression. you cannot be held liable for reading. that is not aggression. >> we can continue. i want to get some others in to make it even riche pull the mic up to you. >> he is coming on. >> i hope this will make it richer. i want to put you in the direction of article 5 for a moment. i am struck by royour descriptin of tea parties as a certain identity. >> it is not on. it is on now? >> about a certaindentity. i am wondering if you -- we did

not merely self govern ourselves. it is constitutional self- government. i am wondering if you see the tea party movement issuing a circumstance will there will be proposed one or more constitutional amendments? how might the courts to interpret things? i wonder if you see that as the individuality there? i am wondering whether youee it that way. i interested in your sense about the tea party movement. were you surprised by this development? i am just curious. >> i do not know. neither does anybody else. it really -- i have to leave it

at that. all i can tell you is that the attitudes toward government we are seeing is not the classic anti--- classic american/anti- governments attitude. it is something different prepa. when i came to america, i was delighted to see the civic commitment of americans and how different it was from the italians. what i am seeing is a walking away from government, the notion is that it is them vs. us in the same way that i have seen it in

europe. do not think for a moment that you he simply docile sheep. you do not. people -- part di this is not healthy. -- part of this is not healthy. there is one tea party in my area. there are certain attitudes that are coming along with it that are frankly at variance with the great american position. >> am i surprised by the? absolutely. i imagined the regulatory

bureaucrats would be more greatly received then they were. one woman taught me a lot. she never even thought about carrying a gun into the federal government told me cannot. i respect that. i respect that feeling of frtration that the tea party members feel. that anti-elises senment is very american. this is a gareat contribution. i think he helps as understand the tea party. i think this surprises me and

other people. progressive and populist movement on the left and right have gone to ways in the past. the president -- prressive movement was adored by the major political parties of the cane mainstream. -- and became mainstream. i think it is not at all clear whether tea party senators will choose to marginalize themselves in a similar way. they can embrace it in a way that will lead to the success that he calls for.

>> let me follow up quickly. there might be, as opposed to judicial review, - is that what you are saying? >> the best scenario for the tea party movement would be to continue to focus the energies of congress and not on the courts. i think it is a good thing. i love peoplehnjb let that says -- i love the pledge that says it must do it on which it rests. that is wonderful. people should read the constitution. she dismissed it as ridiculous that might have to be glib. i think the more constitutional discourse the better. this is a siren song. it -- as long as these arguments

are thought out, the moment that you jump to the court to impose these visions upon an unwilling country, then you risk immortalizing it. quite the point that made -- marginalizing it. >> the point that i made is that one of the challenges that they faces not to ape what the obama-ites have done. this country does n like and will never like partisan government. it is about self governance. the worst thing that could happen would be to try to have a

revolution from above. that is what happened in banana republics. god willing, if this will not become that. there is a whole lot that i am live like to throw out. i will try to limit it to the use of the word "activism." this is just the example of some of the other things that i could have spoken about. this one fits in with activism. the ordinary person who reads the constitution would say there is more justification for buckner -- lockner than there is

for roe. they do say that states shall make no law. there is at least something in there. since it, the idea has been that in certain circumstances, the judges must step in to protect these barriers against government. the question arises, when should de step in or not step in? there has been this term that is re popular on the left because they have redefinedt, i would like to get rid of it altogether. that is the term "judicial activism."

what bothers me about what to the left says when they use the term "judicial activism"is that they never even acknowledged that the right has meant something different. jeffrey rosen uses it to mean when judges strike down a law. the right libertarian's commitee part years -- libertarians, tea partiers, say it means when a dead substitutes his own opinion -- when a judge to substitute his own opinion of the law. cause he likes a law, he does not apply the constitution to strike it down.

i guess what i am asking is, is there a sense in which either that difference of definition could be acknowledged to help the debate? is there a truce in which neither side uses that term a again? >> thank you. usinge tried to avoid that term. i know it is contested. i started [unintelligible] i couldn't help myself. i use it as a shorthand for striking down laws. it is a neual definition. it does not say whether it is good or bad. i think the constitution

properly requires that. i think it is a neutral term. judges should not substitute their own opinions for those of the law. >> that has always been. >> that. it and helpful -- un ishelpful -- is unhelpful. it is in the e ye of the. holder -- it is in the eye of the holder. different strands of conservatives disagree what the constitution requires. given the fact that professor codevilla has suggested as unconstitutional, it is difficult for those who do not share the political

edispositions to feel like they are operating in good ba faith. liberals conclude that the conservative judges are playing with methodologies. we do not want to have a debate about activism. codevilla professor -- professor codevilla said he supports striking down the epa. that is an enthusiastic use a judicial power. it calls for a broad and

aggressive use of judges to restrain government. justice scalia in a debate -- epstein was calling for a judicial validation. political debate should be solved in the political arena. i think we should at the knowledge that conservatives want judges to strike down a whole lot more lawles. >> there is a misunderstanding here. i am not suggesting thathe courts -- i am saying that the epa is a constitutional anomaly.

i have not suggested it is the job of the court to throw it out. far from it. that is a task for congress. >> for giving for misunderstanding -- for a given me -- forgive me for ms. understanding. it is the job of the political branches to do it responsibly with boats for which thewill be held accountable. >> it is up to congress? >> these things were passed by congress.

they might have said there is no bases where the for the court to say you cannot have it at all, it is another thing for the court to stand by as the epa tries to regulate the floatations of cattle. i am not suggesting that -- you r criticism would be quite valid. that has never crossed my mind. >> we have achieved agreement on this one. >> in response to the idea that

the righhand to always -- tends to have the choices be the same, i offer the model in support of the right's definition of activism. it was echoed by clarence thomas when they said it was a silly law. those are examples of times when the policy choice and the constitutional choices were clearly the opposite. that is the model i am throwing out there. >> i like that model. i would suggest those are anomalies. >> please come and join me in

thanking them for a stimulating discussion. our time is up. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> at the bill of rights institute we end on >> robert gibbs announced details and january stated the union speech and the president's agenda for the hundred 12 conagra's per the the spoke to reporters for an update paran. >> the president's going to use

the states and the union to end the focus. >> and looks like something in the till and new. he is taking questions from twitter users today. he made to. news. it to be after january 19 project. till set a tone. >> following a lame duck session, the president saw "don't ask, don't tell" pass. it see in a position to make more deals with republican leaders?

there are certain issues on which they can along and decent thing productive i think they are taking a hard blow. but for him to offer some common ground on which both parties can work together. >> what do republican leaders want to get done first? >> the first thing they will introduce is a repeal on health care reform. in terms of more substance, i think you have seen them talk seriously about cutting spending, especially as they approach the march deadline. that will be a turning pulling -- point. that is around the time they

will take a hard look at raiding the debt ceiling. the early part of next year will be around that deadline. >> take us to the senate side. has mitch mcconnell strengthen his hand by getting more members are having more defenders? >> mitch mcconnell would say that his only been strengthened. a he said that change has come to washington when they tried to bolster their numbers, they will father it more. democrats of playing up the story line. the factions seesaw -- that he saw are evident on the republican minority.

they are not a top priority. >> you can read his work. thank you for the update. >> friday, a discussion on the repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" polic.y then slaly q uinn on faith. she talks about politics and religion. >> here from the

newest justices bill that it said 6:30 p.m. here on c-span ahead .

-- 15 minutes. >> good evening. it is an honor to welcome three remarkable public servants who are also great role models for students on how thinking individuals can have impact on issues of war and peace. president obama was last week in india. he praised the founding leader.

ghandi' observion that is seared in my soul, i [unintelligible] our guests tonight demonstrate in their lives the fact that hard-headed analysiss not incompatible with an empathetic haert. our speaker is the third ranking official at the department of defense. to the conflict in pakistan,

and nuear weapons, china, haiti. it of an issue where military rces are taking action and michelle is a person responsible for formulating the policy in place. we are proud of michelle who was a research fellow here. just before joining the obama administration, issued the co- founder of washington's newest think tank in the security arena and. she is also a graduate of harvard college. michelle will speak to us about about some of the

major national security challenges we face today. she brought two remarkable colleagues. paula certification from 2001- 2009 under george w. bh. see had - -she had responsibility for many issues. agee is now an adjunct fellow here at harvard. professor at theresso school.

she was a security advisor for iraq and afghanistan. you are interested in how individuals can make a difference, meghan sock a situation that looked inevitable that the u.s. would lose and came up with an alternative policy that leaves as in a much better place today. we have a terrific line of people tonight. we are especially proud that michelle has come from washington. we are looking forward to what she has to say. [applause]

>> thanks for the warm welcome. it is great to be back here at harvard. i was an undergraduate year. i was later a fellow at the kennedy school. i've been a fond memories of an event like this to getting up very early in the morning to row to discussions and debates with mentors. one of the things i've always cherished about harbor is the sense of history. says harvard is not s, this is the oldest university in the united states. graduate have profoundly influenced the

nation and the institutions from the colonial era to the present day. the involvement of harvard students in our nation's military began very early before we are even a nation at all. they fought in the american revolution all the way through the end of the war. in the civil war, 55% of the class of 1860 spot in the northern navy -- fought in the northernnavy.

this university by virtue of its own history is a fitting place to talk about war, the sacrifices of war, and the purposes of war. about what to specifically talk to you about america's current wars, our fight in afghanistan and paramilitary presence in iraq. current u.s. troops is nearly 9800. they fight as part of a diverse coalition that includes 47 other nations that work in partnership with afghanistan's allies. it includes not only traditional nato allies like france and turkey but nowhere pardners like malaysia and the united

arab emirates. it brings the total strength of the international coalition in afghanistan to 140,000. afghan forces are taking the lead in more and more operations. these costs have led many to wonder why we remain in afghanistan and how we can hope to achieve an outcome that is worth the sacrifice. as president obama said at west point, i am convinced that our security has a place in

afghanistan and pakistan. but the president explained that this is no idle danger. as we have seen, been it is true that terrorist threats can come fromny number of visitors around the world. there are a number of factors that make the border regions a dangerous source of terrorism and instability. obama has made a commitment to defeating al qaeda and denying them sanctuary in the country. one of the factors is the region's history. leadership has

prepared for terrorist attacks of the last. that includes a tax on ndon ttacks on-- a ta mumbai.nd new b there is nowhere else in the world lesseps -- with such an established record of international terrorist activity. it could be shortsighted for us to assume that afghanistan would cease to hold any attraction for al qaeda and associated networks.

it to be equally shortsighted to ignore the relationships between afghanistan and the neighbor pakistan. the border between these two countries is more than 1,500 miles long. that is the distance between boston and dallas b. the geography and ethnic makeup of theorder region means they are truly can joined bur. their fate is intertwined. we have to address botcited the border. -- sides of the border. as the work with afghanistan to

increase flexibility, we are also working to help pakistan deal with the insurgency. as president obama said, we will strengthen pakistan and the targets that threaten our country. we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and passions are clear. we also made clear that the united states will no longer make the mistake of being as narrow as a have in the past brit. there is a growing middle class. we seek to help foster democraticevelopment. our efforts against violent extremists depends member on the

success on attaining -- maintaining the top presence in afghanistan. removing or reducing this would ease the pressure on al qaeda. the potential consequences are quite high. this is one reason why the war has drawn support from some many other countries. this is not just american fight. this is a regional matter. what happens now in afghanistan and pakistan has a broader ramifications be no --

ramifications. the acvely seek nuclear weapons. the administration has conducted a review of our progress. the purpose is to assess the implementation of our strategy. they have the right leadership in place. it will take time. there are tangible signs of hard progress. we are making steady gains in regional command south.

an american brigade supported a mission outside canada are -- kandahar. markets have reopened. children are going back to school. it is totally impossible a few years ago. we have extended our operations beyond the river valley. the progress is and it should be shown -- is because of our troops. i know this does cause disturbances.

it calls for a plan whereby the afghan presence decreases and -- increases and the nato presence decrease that is precisely our aim. it will take time prevent -- time. these are good examples of what we can achieve. they afghan local police approved by president karzai h shown good early results. it connects the central government to rural areas and

help separate insurgent from the population. this was a long contested area of insurgents. locals got off an insurgent sell -- cell. attacks by insurgents in the area was consistent throughout the summer and early fall. this is just o conversation about the reintegration can affect the lives of the local population. as of this past july, the army

exceeded the growth forecast three that had it time. we expect this in the local security forces to shift the momentum in the government's favor. we need in afghanistan that is fully capable and free of unwanted foreign involvement. these gains are real. there is a long way to cool and afghanistan. we have seen wh happens abandon afghanistan. it is not a mistake that we can afford to make again. we seek neither to occupy

afghanistan nor leave it prematurely. it is grounded in mutual respect. we look to forge a lasting friendship. this is a good point to mention july 2011. that is when we will begin u.s. troop withdrawal and afghanistan. i will talk about what it means and will notean. it will mean the beginning of some combat troop reductions where and when conditions allow. july 2011 when not mean the end of our treatment for

afghanistan or even a reduction of operations from the three operations. -- reduction of operations. they will provide for their own national security. president karzai will reaffirm our shared desire by the end of 2014. we envision a long-term nato commitment to continue acquiring and revising afghanistan nationals. we also have a commitment to build the civilian [unintelligible] with a yardy increase the american civilian contingent by more than threefold -- we have already increased the american civilian contagion by more than threefold.

we hope to improve the life of afghans. we see a similar long-term commitment for our back -- iraq. whether not you thought the invasion was a good idea in the first place, it is vital that we end it responsibly and that we continue to support them as a stable and democratic country. they sacrifice a great deal to achieve as much as they have. we are close to consolidating and entering a new pha in our

relationship. on december 1, our initiative shifted from a combat mission to an advisory assistance mission. this has been made possible by the security situation. they have made great strides. we have been allowed to draw down our troop presence. the security situation has remained quite stable. it is at the lowest level since 2003. this suggests that the iraqi security forces are stepping up and providing internal security. the natu o the threat to al qaeda and other extremist groups is not what it used to be. the high-profile attacks are

sporadic and not systematic bu. they are no longer setting off a chain of richard leaders -- retribution. divisions are inevitable in a society driven by conflict. ir has taken a major step forward. there is widespread acceptance of the system. iraqis are seeking to advance with in the system ratherhan support those who would tear the system down. over the first few years, we

have drawn down 100,000 forces. the irving the foundation for long-term security relationships predatory -- relationships. i would like to include on the role you can play. i talked about the university's impressive history. the timeline ended about the middle of the 20th century. some of these universities have significantly cut back. this estrangement between the

military and some of our finest institutions has deeply negative consequees for all involved. secretary gates recently said that today are voluntary military is well educated abroad the diversity that is representative of the nation as a whole. the burden of the wars is borne by a very small slicef the american population. 1%. is less than1n certain segments of our society are bearing even more this portion of shares of the crifices. there is a risk of developing leaders that politically, culturally, and geographically have less and less in common

with the people they are trying to defend. in not be good for our military or our nation. those most underrepresented are those that have most benefited from the three dams -- from the free dance. if you think i'm talking about you, you are right. i'm asking you to consider serving in the uniformed military or elsewhere. many of you have an interest in security policy. i'm asking you to think be on the well-worn path of think tanks and policy offices. i'm asking you to think about directly contributing to the united states military.

i have some knowledge of such people who have chosen such a course. my husband is a cornell grad phillips -- graduate and has served as a navy captain. why not consider a similar path? that is my challenge tonight. that is not something for everyone. the national security challenges before us are truly daunting. we need smart and educated men and women like you to find some way to help. thank you. [applause] >> paulo will stay with -- paula will say what she agrees

with their does not agree with. >> let me say how pleased i am to be here this evening with such a distinguished panel. i have known them all and worked with them. but we began by saying -- let me begin by saying the policy overview that michelle laid out i think is a very sound and realistic one. it is one that is rooted in our nation security interests. i will start with that. another thing that struck me is that at the end of this week [inaudible] what came to my mind was the issue of afghanistan and a

section of that summit and where we are looking at where the next steps are. i do think the summit is an excellent opportunity to register our strong commitment. a number of our allies are looking at taking an alternative course. even though they may be taking an alternative course, i think this does provide an excellent opportunity to lay down the markers of our strategy very clearly and definitively and it will sll appeal to our allies. r security alliance is critical. it can encourage them to move

forward and still provide support for the situation on the ground, which, again, is afghanistan. many are already involved in this capacity. i think they can continue to be involved in a very critical way. for long-term stability, it is essential to have a sound foundation of civil society, economic growth, and a foundation that tackles corruption. and i think the summit provides an opportunity to galvanize support from those that can help in thicapacity. i wanted to underscore another

thing she mentioned. she talked about pakistan. i dohink our policies toward pakistan is essential and key in the dynamics of the evolution. i think she laid out very clearly areas that we need to be focused on in terms of pakistan and the administration has focused on economic ways of entering pakistan and helping themnd pviding incentives so thate are in sync with our strategies with the eradication of those forces.

we are players. the alliance is players, but all the countries in the region also have a role to play. that includes pakistan in this case. finally, i would say that, with regard to iraq, let me transfer over the same points that made afghanistan. when i look back on track in terms of the evolution and the development, i do think that the combination of hard power and soft power makes a difference. i am a very strong proponent of soft power. in this case, when you look at where iraq was and where it is now, i do think that the kind of assistance that has been rendered, let me pick o a different sector, not only our allies, but, by the way, public-

private partnerships. so many private partnership non-governmental organizations have played a very key role on the ground in iraq. institutions, organizations, like the national endowment for democracy, the national democratic institute, the international republican institute -- i can go on for a whole vaety. i can complement somebody sectors, whether it is held, basic public services, political training, all of these areas have mattered. i wanted to mention someone who now affiliated with harvard and has been a strong supporter of this kind of an agenda, the former ambassador to afghanistan, said lead to what -- sahid jewad is here in the audience.

>> thank you. >> let me also begin by think telling -- but taking all of you for inviting me here tonight and imichele for being here tonight. i would like to begin by endorsing your final officer list. our classrooms are filled with students who have served in a variety of capacities and are eager to find ways to serve going forward. i am sure many of them he and elsewhere will heed your call and look forward to that. again, let me mention three things. the first is that the u.s. role and the importance of psychology -- when i think about what i have learned in being involved in iraq and afghanistan over the last year, when the united

states brings many things to these theaters, it brings military power, financial resources, technical expertise, diplomatic hat. but one thing i certainly undervalued was the importance of studying a psychological environment. what i mean by that is that we are lking -- the international community, broadly speaking -- we look at them to make very hard decisions about their future. we cannot make those decisions for them. but we can help create a climate in which it is easy for them -- in which it is easier for them to choose a decision that may not be one that is personally aligned with their sectarian group or their tribe and prioritize as a nation. -- and priorizes a nation.

we are asking people to make decisions that could be very costly, not just financially, but primarily in terms of security and their future. if the united states helps to create psychological merman for them to make those decisions -- -- psychological environment for them to make those decisions, at the end of the day, what does it all added to? does it add up to a psychological environment in which afghans, iraqis, and others can take the risk that we want them to take to create a better society? that is certainly one of the issues behind the timelinehat secretary for elaborated on. -- secretary fornoy elaborated on. the second is building on the sock power issue. in our classrooms, many of us

have talked about the importance of the civilian side of the equation. we're all very well trained to articulate that point as 80% of non-military and 20% military. in reality, i think we all know that our civilian side still falls short in many ways despite very serious effort on the part of the obama administration and the administration for the civilian side. i want to build that into our conversation, the apartments of keeping at that, either by your own personal service, but also to our congress in rognizing that allocating money for the civilian efforts is as every bit as important as the military side. certainly, the civilian side and its ability to partner and work in a whole government approach, the military approach will be a key in the success in

afghanistan, but also a key in consolidating the good things that happened in iraq in the last two years. if you talk to iraqis now, they're concerned about a lot of things, but one thing is will they be able to maintain a strategic relationship with the united states? we have an interest in seeing that that relationship has many, many dimensions, not just the military dimension. lastly, let me just conclude with a big topic. i will say two things on it. the whole issue of what are the lessons from iraq to afghanistan -- we could spend months discussing it. i can tell you one area that i worry about people drawing lessons and another area where is righto draw lessons. reconciliation, in some ways, we talk more about reconciliation in afghanistan. we recognize that that has to be a key component. i think there is a danger that

we have the iraqi experience in our mind. if we look at what happened in iraq, reconciliation was very much a part of improved security environment in politics that both of my co-panelists described. but a lot of those people came into the political process without the iraqis in power having to make major changes to the constitution or the political order. it was not so much a negotiation where people had to make really hard decisions about what was fundamental to the new iraq and what was something that could be given away. it basically was insurgents and hers accommodating themselves to the new iraq. that is not irreversible, but that, in some ways, suggests that reconciliatioin afghanistan may be easier than probably will be paired in afghanistan, there will be tougher conversations and tougher decisions made about what is something that could be

compromised and something that is not. i think there is a lot of room for drawing good lessons on the issue of transition. we talked about how the combat role in iraq shifted to supporting and training role in iraq and how that has been. that actually masked what was in fact a very sophiicated abolition of the relationship between the united states and the iraqis, particularly on the military side, but not clusively. the move in the u.s. was the front line actor, one where it became a supporting actor and now a behind-the-scenes actor. it was one that was much more gradual, constantly taking

assessments about is it possible to move forward? we have to move back? it took a lot of calibration. ashe obama administration thinks about transition in afghanistan, something that is on people's minds, they are thinking about a model that will reflect the kind of sophisticated sequencing of both civilian and military relationships. let me stop there and turn it back to our chair. >> can you tell us how it works in the pakistani peace? >> we have been investing in

trying to develop a full- fledged strategic partnership with pakistan. we have had strong areas of cooperation on counterterrorism. one of the things that few americans know is that, over 30,000 pakistanis have actually died, either in the military or civilians who were targeted, in dealing with these militant and extremist groups. they are paying a heavy price. we believe that the more we can invest in pakistan, reassure them of our commitment to their stability, their economic and democratic development, the more they will be able to shift their strategic calculus in a way that buys and stability in the region and does not adopt some of their historical approaches to sort of hedging their bets, if you will turn the stratic partnership -- if you will.

the strategic partnership is beginning to pay dividends. that shift will not happen overnight. we will continue continue investing in the cooperation to try to find more and more ways that we can cooperate to bri greater stabilityo the region. >> let me invite the audience to join the conversation. we have two microphones on the ground floor. and there are two microphones here. the rules are that you stand up by the microphone, introduce yourself, put your questions succinctly. we only have three speakers tonight. we have a great opportunity for abou20 minutes to have a serious conversation. >> my name is eugene hogan. i am stating for a doctoral

degree at brandeis university where i am studying nuclear proliferation or ways to prevent it. since tonight's topi is women and war, alice hoping to -- i was hoping to ask about challenges and opportunities that women face in public service. the challenges and opportunities for women in america, especially in the area of national security. thank you. >> i would start by noting how much things have opened up. my first tour in the pentagon, i remember hosting a lunch for senior women in the pentagon. all nine or 10 of us sat at one table. now, if i issued a similar invitation, we would burst out of the dining room.

are we where wwant to be? no. is it much improved? s. what really gives me great confidence and inspiration is that there are a couple of generations right behind us. the women who are now serving as deputy assistant and at the office director level, recently out of graduate school, several years of work experience, they are coming into leadership roles. there you see tremendous talent, gates wide-open, and i think lots of progress in terms of creating openings and opportunities for women. >> i think that's the situation has really opened up very widely for women. there are lots of opportunities. i am going to give a flip side to this. i remember when, as an ad -- as

an undergraduate, i decided early on that i would go into international affairs. the fact of the matter was that there were not a lot of women who were going down that path. maybe some of the numbers at that time did not match up because some were not going into the foreign service. some were not going because that was not the educational path that they pursued. i went as an undergraduate to the school of foreign service at georgetown and did my graduate work he at harvard. one of my professors, a huntington, he was very big on internships. i became an intern athe national security council. there were lots of doors opened up if you wanted to go through it and have the expertise. i will add to your question and said, basically, i think i have seen a market shift where a lot more women are pursuing careers

in this path where they had not before, at least during my time and in the beginning of my career. but i think there are a lot of opportunities afforded now. >> let me put in 1 foot note and see if megan will speak to this. advertising, remembering sam huntingtons inteectual contributions with one of his students and the usual suspects, that is november 30. megan, would you comment on this? >> yes. i have benefited from women in generations before mine and i did push some of those doors open. i have been very thankful for that in my career. this is a slightly different ane. there's the question of whether women should go into middle eastern studies?

should they look to work in national security in the middle east? i would wholeheartedly say yes. i have found this to be a very fruitful and interesting and gratifying place to build relationships and to work with other people in other parts of the world. it could be from all kinds of things i have found, especially as a midwestern woman, being able to sit with the men and being able to sit with the women. i also get to see both sides of a society which has sometimes been closed to only one sex. >> maybe i could pursue a little further. after the invasion of iraq, it was part of the first wave and it was hard to do with the politics of iraq. it was two years before you were working in policy. there were difficulties in putting the government back

together again. you went back there for several months. tell us a steady to about why it is difficult for women to do this in iraq? >> i found that advantages were much greater than the diiculties. when i think about the ability to be effective in the middle east and in iraq and afghanistan, i think about the key factor being the ability to build relationships. i think you have experience that in yr different forms of service. that is the key thing. there's a people who say that women are better than that -- better at that than men. i don't get into that debate. but that was the key thing. hang those relationships, some of them come from growing yourself at a great point of

uncertainty. when i look at some of the relationships that i built with iraqis letter of -- with iraq is that are important to me, they got a great start because i arrived before a lot of the iraqis returned from exile. we were on the ground together. those days were both terrifying and inspiring. whether you're a man or woman, an american, an iraqi, any of this has more of a bearing on gender. that has been my experience. >> thank you so much, ladies, for coming. number one, the important correlation between poverty and terrorism -- i remember working in the northern frontier province. i believe much terrorism comes out of poverty in many of these areas. the only social services

presented are from groups such as the period after the earthquake in pistan, i remember the relations between america and pakistanis improved quite a bit. they are very appreciative that we were one of the first responders, our government, to the tragedy there. i wanted to get your insight on the role we're playing their to eradicate poverty. also, on behalf of my colleague here, an officer in the army who is returning iraqi veteran, she was surprised that the lack of investment on women and children in iraq. there were doing a goodob at educating the men and job skills training and what not, but not for the women. she fears for the future security of the country in this way. i wanted to know, for you, what

we're doing as a government to help the women and children in iraq. >> and take the last part? i thought, as you were asking your question, my first visit to iraq was because there was a conference, the voices of women of iraq conference. starting in 2003, many women in iraq were trying to organize and reach out and they had set an agenda for themselves as to what they wanted to achieve and how they wanted to achieve it. i have to say that i was very imessed, first with the fact that the word definitive about what they wanted to achieve. it really ranged everything from educational opportunities that they wanted to further and solidify, although they had some educational opportunities. at the same time, even to the area of sports and their ability and desire to participate in sports.

over the past years, i think there has been a vigorous campaign and outreach fundamentally through government funding many ngos that are on the ground and that are specifically working with the ministries, the women's ministry, with the various women's organizations, legal organizations that have been set up, even garnering support for women to run for political office. i remember meeting a number of iraqi women who had never had anything to do with politics and were actually having the opportunity to come forward and to be able to do this. i will say that, in my view, a lot of the good work is done by a lot of grassroots organizations who are on the ground, who are working very closely with iraqi women, and trying to advance their goals and objectives as they have set

them forth for themselves. at the state department, a woman has been designated as the ambassador for women's issues at large. we have worked with her over these years, both when she was in the private sector and now in government this haseen one of the priorities that both the government and private-sector lives have been established. >> i want to address yr question about poverty and terrorism. we do not find a strong correlation between economic background and those who choose terrorism. i do think there is a correlation in the un governed and under-governed spaces or places that tend to be more

ground for safe havens for extra mr. groups. when you look across the fox up, parts of yemen, sumatra, they have deep and abiding grievance these between the and power groups, disaffected or disempowered groups, where you find only limited access for certain portions of the population to a basic services where government is not -- government is seen more as predatory than services. you have another group come in and inside an extreme ideology and gain since thesympathy. what that s told us is that you need to take a look at government in a ve integrated approach to fight terrorism. admiral wilson says that you

cannot kill your way to victory in counter-terrorism. you have to drop some of the conditions that create fertile soil for terrorists to take root. >> good evening. i am hoping to take advantage of the broad title of this evening's top. i was very happy -- >> i would like you to introduce yourself. >> i am writing my thesis on governance and its impact on the army corps of engineers on afghanistan. i think this is a place where you have an audience that is very devoted to public service and we have a lot of students in the room. we have a lot of different interests. professor alison has obviously gone less concerned about the proliferation of nuclear

weapons. what are you most excited about it? you have each gun much bigger perspectives than these current conflicts. what is the next big thing? what else should we be putting our time and energbehind in the school of government? >> iill pick up on that. one of the areas that i think is really important and worth looking at is what is happening in the arctic. we have witnessed in the arctic a warming trend. as a result, you have passages that are being opened. on one hand, this has commercial opportunities. but it also has a race for resources and other ramifications, in fact, for many countries, including our own, that border the arctic. actually, i think that there will be number of challenges. the united states has not signed the treaty. we we should be -- we should be

a signatory for the law ofhe sea treaty. there will be a lot of interesting challenges as well as debates and discussions over that arena, which will loom larger. for those looking for new research topics, i would say to take a look at the arctic. it has energy ramifications, commercial ramifications, environmental ramifications, and questions of sovereignty. >> i would agree with that. i would also nominate two more -- asia is a regional one. when you look at our economic prosperity and interest, the changing power dynamics in asia, the rise of china and the rise of india, the reconsidering of inrnational norms, commerce and trade, i think issue will be a focal point for

our strategic interest for the next several decades. the other one that i have been talking about and that i am trying to recruit people to is cyber. cyber is a completely uncharted conceptual territory. it is like what the nuclear domain was before. most of our inherited friends fall short war are completely -- inherited frames fall short or are completely misleading. thinking through how we integrate cyberspace and are thinking about cyber and terms economy and national security, it is very important. >> that was a very good question. >> good evening. i am a mid-career student here

at the kennedy school. in january 2011, it will mark the 20-year anniversary of the collapse of the somali government. thank you for the insights into iraq and afghanistan. my question for the panel is what are the proects for u.s. engagement or in engagement in the somalia situation? i would love to hear about that. >> we are just completing a review of our smaller policies. it is an extremely complex and vexing situation with great humanitarian consequences. we are redoubling our efforts to work with the transitional government to support the u.n. force and to increase the cacity to provide greater security forces. we also will be seeking to

engage the other somali autonomoust or commissariea areas. it is an extremely difficult set of columns. frankly,ur leverage is limited. but we want to try to build capacity and the will of those who are more able to leverage the situation, make a difference on the ground, and help to make them more effective. >> we spoke a lot about the conflicts and iraq and afghanistan and we have not yet shifted gears about other issues, like proliferation with

iran and north korea. seeing that the obama administration ran on a platform of increasing diplomatic engagement and talking with adversarial states, i was wondering if you get to comment on why we have not seen more of a push for diplomatic engagement and other things as well, such as sanctions. we have nothing any new initiatives. secretary of state clinton, at he confirmation hearing, there was a lot of talk by many about pushing for moves like trying to the open an interest section, more cultural exchanges. i wanted to know if you have any insight why these things have not been happening. >> i will take the first if you will take the second. on the non-proliferation front, obama came into office with a very strong desire andffort to

engage iran on its nuclear program. the fact that it is out of compliance with the non- proleration treaty and a number of u.n. resolutions and problems with the iaea, the engagement was quite serious. it was largely robust. however, the fact that we made such an effort at engagement and it was in good faith, it allowed others in the international committee to join with us when it came time to push for sanctions. you had russia as a very strong supporter of sanctions. china and others, that you -- that is part of what is making -- the eu, that is part of what is making the sanctions effective. the fact of our engagement made to the international effort stronger.

in other areas, whether it was reinvigorating the nonproliferation review conference, convening the national security summit, the non-proliferation area has been a long line of diplomacy for the administration. but could do more. >> if heard the second part of your question as to what i take away from this, something that i think all three of us in our comments have referred to in a way, in your opening comments, you referred to that. that has been one of the challenges. i believe secretary gates has been very direct on this issue as has secretary clinton -- about the need for not only addressing our defense and military-related issues, but looking at the integration of

these components and how critical it is and putting resources into the diplomatic side, which involves many of the soft power elements that we have discussed. i would simply say that i would start with the fact that there still needs to be a vigorous redressing of that issue. i know that the state department has emulated the talk apartment of defense with this quadrennial -- has emulated the state department of defense with this quadrennial review. right now, the percentage of the moneys is very minimal. i think most think that it comprises a substantial part of our budget. it does not. >> michele was commenting on

this that lo it. do you want to say more on that topic? >> one of the things that i think that those who serve in government find in this day and age is that it is difficult to find a challenge that you can effectively address with just one instrument of national power. what is needed is a much more whole-government approach and integrated approach. yet, what we find as a nation, as we invest in one instrument, we put the military on steroids and everything else is on life support. i think that a strong military serves our national interest fundamentally and very well. but it does not serve our interests in not being able to deploy civilians ian expeditionary manner to seek diplomacy and economic

assistance. they can prevent situations become a conflict situation or can help them come out of conflict and gain political objectives. the politics of this on capitol hill are extremely challenging. it is much more difficult to get resources for the civilian side of the house than the military side of the house. yet it complicates -- that amounts complicates our ability to achieve our objectives. the transition in iraq is a case of point. the military part of the transition is well-founded. the civilian part is not. it is a real challenge for coherent policy going forward. >> we have time for two final questions. this gentleman and this lady, thank you. >> numbest de, shalom --

namaste, cholon -- i am on racial them. i study women and war. that is why i'm here tonight. i would like to submit that to address the issues of psychological and garments and civility -- psychological arguments and civility, the initiative of nonviolence would be a way to go forward. but because it would be a people movement. a. people move that would be political. it would be an interaction of gornment and the people. in particular, right now, on the west bank, there is a documentary coming out and the people of israel that together with the people in the west bank and they promoted non-

violence with women leading the way. so there is some strgth. if women take the lead in the movement of non-vience, then we have the empathetic house that you alluded to in the beginning. then we also have a mobilized people. when obama took office, he reached out with the olive branch in his first television interview. he said, we're not enemies to the islamic world. to get to my question, if there was a movement -- i have been working on a global strategy of nonvionce if anyone is interested with an initiative called "a call to women" -- if there was a call to women, not only in the united states, but

there is evidence in afghanistan of the women getting together -- with the government be open -- would the government be open to the movement of nonviolence led by women and with the work together? >> think that there are -- over the course of history, there have been many times where grass-roots movements have come out of civil society and have been very powerful pponents of positive change. our own experience is the civil rights movement, the experience of the nonviolent movement in india's formation -- there are many examples of this in history where there is initially difficult and the productive dialogue with a society.

-- with a society and government. it is hard for me to speculate and know exactly what you are envisioning. but a dialogue with a civil society on how to move on a wide range of national security issues is a positive thing, especially in a dramatic -- especially in a democrat society like ours. >> tony shays was undersecretary, one of the early people opening some of the doors. >> now i am just a lowly professor at fletcher. [laughter] michele, i cret you with being the parent of pdd 56 and the

whole concept. we worked on this a bit together here at the kennedy school. the concept of civil military planning, it now seems to me to be more important than ever under the kind of irregular warfare and the kind of strategy. wh kind of power can you put behind it or are you putting behind this concept? that really goes to the question and discussion just prior to the last question on the shortage of resources. but in the government, in the planning phase, knowing what'we failed that in iraq, what are you planning to do? >> there have been several

iterations. it is something that we actively use. there was one plan developed in iraq -- i am not sure when they started, but i w there by the later stages -- and it is also being used in a more pro-active way as we contemplate potential future crises. we're trying to bring together people to think through them and hold government, approach, identify, everything from strategy to resources and so forth. i think the planning phase has come a long way. what has not come with it as fully as we have been discussing is the resourced ching to fully enabled the civilian plant.

>> unfortunately, we have come to the end. let me say again what an honor it is to haveuch great publi servants here and how much we especial appreciate michele for taking so much time out of her incredible schedule. thank you. [applause] i forgot one thing. , admiral mike a mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, will be here.

.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] we don't have all that time anymore, it seems to me. we're faced with a critical and competitive problem, in terms of maintaining our economy. the jobs that we have lost are not coming back. the jobs that are going to come back have a much higher component of skill and the educational-based skills. if we don't absorb that in terms of where we are in the next decade, i think we're going to have a very difficult time in this country. i think education is the

absolute core of where we're going to be in the next decade or two. cesare? >> i would like to add a couple of quick points. i think the issue of urgency is important. at univision, we have identified this as the single biggest issue we think faces not only our country but also our community. now is the time, literally is the message we're trying to send. this issue of urgency. we cannot wait to begin to address this issue. today, as many of you know across the country, this is a national number. one in four, one in four kindergarten students today are of latino descent. when you add to it other minority communities in -- and the like, that is not a latino issue, that is an american issue. we need to make sure we as a country and as a private sector

take it very seriously. my second point would be to the attendeings in the room today. i would encourage dwroverp think to have private sector, as we all know, it is just one part of the potential solution. we have to look to create partnerships between the private sector and the different constituency that are contributing to the solutions here. i think it is important that we start to think more crivel how the private sector -- creatively how the private sector can partner. >> i think that you know, there are accoladers as i call them in florida. from the business community to the chamber, to the manhattan institute came down and said a lot of things in florida. the florida council 100. find those existing groups in your state and work with them. and get them as motivated about creating competition. i think the one thing on a

business, we compete for every job we win. you go out and you got to fight for that job and be competitively advantaged and we need to make sure that tender vegetation system that we all in our way, touch and feel and try build our change. i think there are lots of different component parts that you're going to learn about in the next day and a half but take all of that away as action oriented people, pass legislation, try it and if it doesn't work, go back and fix it for the last time. >> we're going to open t up for q and a but first one last question. successful leaders have to take chances and sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. if you could leave our audience today with one piece of advice about leadership that you think might help them in going

forward with that, -- >> well, i guess i would go back to what i think is a central point here in terms of education. to find some ways to make teaching an absolute essential concern of everybody and to find ways to attract great teachers in our system. that is the most important thing to try do to transform the education in this country. >> i think leaders here, everybody is a leader in this topic. it is a giant jigsaw puzzle and one like the governor said in his opening remarks, i'm actually optimistic about it. there are missing parts. it is not as if we don't have the money or students or the will to do it. we just have to put the parts together and that requires leadership. everybody here is a leader. when somebody fails, there is an announcement whether we did well or didn't do well. we either get -- because we did

well or get booted because we didn't do well. that is the accountability of everybody in this room waiting for superman. i got news for you. you superman. that's it. you got to do it. >> kathleen? >> i'm going share one story when i was working for governor. he was up for re-election. first incumbent republican governor ever to try to run for office again. he and john wynn were in his office and said we're going to do social promotion meaning we're not going to pass third graders if they don't read at the next level. he said absolutely not. absolutely not. that is clear leadership. about an issue that was not debatable. i was not a leader at that moment in time but i was empowered to be a leader and to not take no and to not walk away from opportunities like that and to be bold and

decisive when the opportunity presents itself, so i just challenge you all to do that in every one of the states and districts that you represent, because it will matter and it does work. >> following up on kathleen's comments, i think the point, you know, being bold, being aggressive, how many times have you done something and you look back and, should have pushed a little harder. could have gotten it. the it was not that difficult. had i pushed twice as hard, which i didn't think was possible at that time, too often, we toned pull up short on really what would -- tend to pull up short on really what would be that profound change. we may disagree on what went on with the district. with the education system the last couple of years. some bold changes that basically position to district in a better position than it would have been had they not

been taken. so it is the old adage you think over the little kid, you pull that band aid off a little at the time. i would define leaderships as how you get other people to follow who may not be inclined to do so. a lot of that comes from working with people willing to be able to reach across the aisle. as jeb was talking about this morning. i can get people. this is about kids and you talk about children and that is who this really is all about. it can't be about adults. it can't be about job -- you have to define it that way. i think the other aspect of this which has been echoed by the other panelists so far.

something that george taught me who has been involved with this issue for decades now. that's that you never get anything done politically unless there is a real or perceived crisis. i think there is a sense today that -- this has been the year of documentaries. we have a crisis. when you have those rare moments, you better seize them because they don't come along very often and you better act boldly. >> thank you. i grew up. very straightforward. think big. work hard. stay humble. i think we as individuals can make a difference but i think if leaders can figure out the way to set up an environment where the folks around them are equally if not more passionate, equally if not, i think that is important. with that, i think everyone has that type of environment also needs to understand that you have to have a stomach for --

risk brings in some cases failure. lessons learned and i think that is one of the tough aspects of leadership as well as to have the stomach so that your team understands that you were going to stand behind them as long as they keep ino vates and they are fast learners. hopefully you all get there together. >> everyone, you want the give a round of applause? [applause] >> i think we have a mic. there is a mic. there we go. >> nobody has talked about teachers unions. are they friend or foe? >> the question is how would you deal with teachers unions. are they friend or foe? >> both. but not necessarily in that order.

[laughter] that is huge problem. because the interest of the teacher unions and their leadership may be very difficult than -- the interest of teaching. and that -- that's a bureaucracy that has its own values and interests. we are a teacher. your whole life was devoted to the teaching of children. how could you not support the idea of getting rid of bad teachers instead of just dealing with seniority? and the response was i could never get elected if i took that approach. that was a huge conflict between what is the interest of the teachers union and the students. and somehow or other, there has got to be political leadership that deals with that. this is a thing that is -- it

is not easy. and you can't just go at them and just try and break them. you see what happened in some cities or where we do get the political support, for those leaders of the -- the academic world in that community, when they go up against the teachers union, i mean, it is a huge problem that we're going to face given the size of the teachers union and frankly their political clout. but it has to be -- there is just no choice. >> i think you have been a little too kind. i think the teachers unions are an enormous problem and it is not a problem with the teachers. it is a problem with vested interests. and i think you have to create alternative paradigms in order to get the unions to be responsive. i'll go back to milwaukee as a case in point.

once there was a bill passed which was vehemently fought against by the unions. they then did things like -- there is no longer seniority placement in milwaukee. they realized they could not put all the bad teachers in the schools. they made these changes themselves. they began to offer tutoring programs because they realized they had to get the reading levels, conference hention levels up in the public schools. those things wouldn't have occurred if they had not been forced to make those changes so i think you to have forces from the outside to get the unions to change and modify their behavior when they do so then all things can improve. left to their own devices, it won't happen. >> kathleen, both your parents were teachers. >> i told my mom do you know

that part of your funds go to political -- >> i said no. i would say they are foe going to potential ally. we all now know what a rubber room is. we did not know that that long ago. it is a badge of education because there is a lot more transparency in the system now. so they can't hide, the rates of the -- that president obama and secretary duncan are -- having out there as funds for state is requiring paper performance. so it has been very interesting to see the union trying to figure out what is their new color. we have to keep it diligent. you have to make is that your they are metric measured and that it is -- educating the parents. i listened to -- and the panel this morning. it is about educating and empowering the parents to

challenge the unions and the politicians that protect them. >> it is basically how do we make -- or help communities become better consumers of the education system? and what kind of question should i ask? we were talking about the data earlier. why are our kids failing? or the trends going down? putting that information into the day log, it may not totally have a warm, fuzzy relationship with some of your -- opponents on things but it sure raises the level of discourse and understanding in the community. >> hi susan myers with the foundation for educational choice. this is bill freeman's legacy foundation. many of you as c.e.o.s, many of your corporations have outsourced jobs overseas to get better quality and results. why have you not spoken out about outsourcing education more as in private schools,

school vouchers, tax credits, charter schools, to get better quality education today? >> ok. come on. [laughter] >> you know what? it is a good question. i think it goes down to the discussion that we were having earlier is about choice and competition. we compete every day. every single day and we keep score. and if you compete and you keep score, you will get better. and you know, advocacy from the private sector to have private schools compete with public schools, absolutely. i think i don't know how we do that. i guess the difficult question to answer but i think every one of us would support that. >> we already have competition between schools. our kids can tell whether or not, you're going to beat them in football or basketball this

year? you know how that goes? how does it come along on your a.p. courses? algebra one or two? they don't have a clue. how do we elevate the awareness in the community in terms of let's beat the socks off of our cross town rival when it comes to the academic side of the equation as opposed to just -- what would you do, shut the scoreboard down? we're not going to score the second half? parents would be up in arms. point i'm trying to make is how do we focus on really the academic piece? it is un-american to shut down the scorecard. i know. >> the people who i found have been c.e.o.s of companies who have been willing to speak out on this issue, have by and large been entrepreneurs who started their own businesses, who are not beholden to unions.

you have many people who are coast of large companies where they have got a lot of union issues and this will make their business lives complicated to step out of this and the unions control an awful lot of money that goes into politics. so this comes back to politics and again, it goes back to how can you work to change that paradigm? somebody who has done a magnificent job of this is john kearley in florida. five years ago, a good 30 members of the black caucus, almost all democrats, only one out of 30 voted for school choice. this year 23-30. almost every member of the hispanic caucus voted for school choice. once you started then, their constituents began to experience it and they won't go back. but we have got to get doast step out on this and take some risks and they need to be more

vocal and they need to be more visible. [applause] >> the only thing i would add is you should all go to a florida state board of education meeting. all of my board members are for choice actively. two of us are c.e.o.s on the panel and we welcome competition in florida, at every level, business and economic. >> a lot of money was passed out to support education and some of the various economic stimulus bills. but nothing was -- and in a sense -- for example, remains one of the standards of school districts where there are unions. and yet when huge amounts of money went to one of the urban school districts, there is no get from the teachers union on this. it is not just the leadership

and the community sometimes in dealing with an individual, it is really somehow a collective view that somehow has to focus in on the way our teachers are organized so that in a sense the students come first and not the institutional value of the unions and i think that is something that is a very complicated issue. it is not going to happen overnight and it cannot be done just in the form of total -- but somebody has to take the leadership from the public side and try and make that happen. it is necessary over some time but it has got to happen. >> i'm mike flanagan, state superintendent in michigan. first of all, i want to thank you for distinguishing between the teachers and the teachers union. if it wasn't for miss cuba, i -- here is a problem as i see it.

we're tying student achievement data to teachers. we produce more teachers in michigan than anyone in the country and some of them are lousy and they finally have to step up and take some of the accountability for the preparation, which hasn't been good. 15 years ago, i started as a real superintendent. i started at greenfield village. i know that there is kids who have graduated from there whose lives are different than they would have been had they been in the detroit school system. we have 150,000 people in our schools, teachers, supts, principals. they chose these professions because they saw it as the old, get a retirement, not have to worry about being fired and i'm trying to get with this expertise here. how do we get our -- to select people that are more open to that and how we maybe do something with our economisting

two million teachers because the reason the unions are successful in driving fear into the average teacher is because they think it is all about just firing them rather than taking the overwhelming number or doing a great job and showing that they can make more money and that they can actually succeed and i think paul or someone said it this morning that the competition will set them free. they just really don't believe it and i would like to hear your view and maybe we can help break that because that is fundamentally the fear factor on a lot of the reforms. >> i think managing any large organization, the same principles would apply. you keep score. you reward those that are good with better choice of roles, more pay and you take care of the problems. it is not -- not pleasant and it takes courage but if you keep score and you reward success and deal with failure, you'll progress. that's how you run the business

and i think that is the same thing. you find a way to -- reward. first of all, you have to keep score. if the scoreboard of the football game is blank, it is hard to tell whether you're winning or losing. you have to do that first of all. aggressively reward success and just as aggressively manage those that are not successful. >> good afternoon, panel. i'm wayne humphreys, the vice president of the central florida ymca. my question is how can we do a better job of not going it alone? so oftenings school districts are on an island by themselves and other resources in the community could lend to the enrichment of school-age children. how can we do a better job of not going it alone?

>> my first stap at that would be use the technology. the internet in reaching out through various programs, website organizations and doing a lot of sharing of practices and getting away from the old, we need to evaluate, study and develop a program locally. we don't pay any attention to what's going on outside. there are tremendous pockets of sbrens across the country in being able to identify those and reaching out, we have gone into illinois at times where a -- a local superintendent may have an attendance problem. the data accumulation and availability and can look, the school district over here had a similar problem. they are doing much better. i wonder what they did. they can reach out to a principal or fellow superintendent. what were you doing on

attendance or you moved some of your math scores up. what were you doing there? it is one of the powerful things around the technology is -- collapses the world down to your terminal. >> one last question. >> thank you. i love the panel and love everything that you're doing. i would like to get your comments on this you can see the bifurcation. you're talking about all the necessary reforms we need to drive the nation's education output into the future successfully and yet at the same time, you are utilizing all the old structures and myths about superintendents and districts and teacher quality. the teacher quality myth is one of the things i would like to particularly address. it is like saying the key to writing a good state farm policy is the quality of our underwriters.

what it really isn't and by doing the teacher quality focus, we're sitting in the old paradigm of caring about teachers when we ought to be caring about what are the standards when we ought to get them into the face of the children. i actually have a question -- i'm asking for a reply to this. the plea that i would have is that you use your talents and corporate power and wealth and the things that you have created and done to actually help the people in this room reverse and dismantle the system that has failed to work and to help us create the clout to build the new system that is necessary as opposed to trying to save this system that is beyond salvation. >> you know, great point. part of what we go through is how do you better understand the consumer today? and i think everyone up here, there is not -- single consumer. the demographics spread in terms of how you connect with

different age groups. it might be much more complex today than ever before. focusing in on that customer and while we typically do not think of a student as being a customer, they are. and how do we connect with them? do we bring them into a classroom and use the black board and some form of electronics that they are accustomed too? -- to? do i have some sort of black board or mobile device that i communicate with all of my friends? why can't we use that in the classroom and we think through all of that. it is the growth with the changing reality to have marketplace or the classroom. going through back when -- when i started 35 years ago r in the business, you know, computers, that was something in a big room. you didn't have anything else. or a little hand-held calculator would cost you $400

where today, your frustration. what do i need to respond to? my iphone or ibad or blackberry. trying to get people to think differently and to think currently what is the reality? how do you commune by email or send out a teacher using twitter this sending out an assignment to student or texting. it is part of that upgrade, the thinking and skill-set to be able to remain vell relevant to today's world. >> i agree with you. i think we all recognize incremental changes to system are not going to be effective. a lot of things we discuss today about the inputs rather than the outcomes. the outcomes, what we talked about what the governor mentioned in his presentation this morning is a year for a year. that's the outcome. if we know that is the mission,

we can build whatever we need to build to deliver a year for a year. some of the things that we talked about are tactical and not strategic. the strategic outcome that we are all after is year per year. preferly better than that. we used to be able to deliver better than that. if we set that as an objective we'll at least know where we're going. right now, incremental change is not good enough. we all recognize that. we can tweak the teacher here or deal with the union there. frankly what you need is a reset button. this is very, very successful. times have changed. our competitors around the world have changed. other countries have changed and adapted to what's happening. we haven't done that yet. we need the reset. we know what the mission is. we just need to sit down and figure it out. >>

>> to beat the horse that i've been beating all morning. i still think that one game changer that is available and that is technology. i think technology, if we can get academic practice programs that we can -- on screen or through technology to the student, and make it interactive, which i know we can do, i think that is the way that we can change and reduce going forward, the number of teachers we will need. we can pay the teachers more and get more flexibility out of the teachers when we pay them more and toll and think how to make this happen in the shortest period of time. >> the one thing i have to add is really you have to get involved. many of you are way involved it is hand-to-hand combat. pass legislation. if it doesn't pass, defeat the person that doesn't pass it. show the videos. that is -- that is what it

takes and it is really -- it's, you know, we can talk about it strategicically, give you some tactical things that we deal with on a competitive landscape but in terms of being real movement forward, it is minuscule compared to where we need to get to. so i would just encourage you to get involved at every level that you can be and i think if you ask a business in your local community how they can be helpful, they will stand with you and get involved. we have seen it in the reinvestment of our employees that we have to retrain every day. >> thank you all so much. [applause] before relieve, just a couple of things. first, i want to thanks jamie. didn't she do a fantastic job of moderating? [applause] thank you to our c.e.o.s also. a couple of logistical things. after is this session, we have three home run fantastic

strategy sessions starting at 3:po, if you all will come back in here for a general session, it is all about what do you do in tight budget times? i think we're all in tight budget times. 6:00 6:00 reception right outside and 7:00 dinner with governor chris christie. thank you.

>> today on "washington journal," anna mulrine. then sally quinn. founder of the "washington post" forum on faith. she stops by to talk about religion and politics. "washington journal" takes your phone calls and emails at 7:00 a.m. on c-span m >> on c-span, christmas eve,

speaker of the house nancy pelosi and others light the capital christmas tree. later on the 50th anniversary over the first televised presidential debate, they talk about the preparation for a presidential debate and their impact on the campaign. christmas day, former british prime minister tony blair and author christopher h hitchens and former supreme court justices sandra day o'connor and david suitor discuss life on the high court. we visit the museum of american history in richmond, virginia. also, from the knickson presidential library's oral history project, former a former astronaut on the early space program. and alidta black reveals

politics, controversies and media savvy of the former first lady. see the complete schedule online at c-span.org/history. you can press the c-span alert button and have our schedule emailed to you. >> it shouldn't take a constitutional crisis, a terrorist attack or a calamity. the greatness of which we are capable. nor can america afford to wait. >> hear from retiring senators on the c-span video library. with every c-span program since 1987. all online. all free. it is washington, your way. >> next, the panel talks about how the american education system is affecting the competitiveness of the u.s. in

business. wal-mart, state farm insurance and univision take part in the conversation. >> good morning, everyone. [applause] first of all, welcome to washington, d.c., for those of you who are visiting our glorious nation's capital. a few years ago, if you visited washington, d.c., i don't think you would have thought of us at a place that had taken the tiger by the tail and really trying to fix our schools. that has all changed as you have seen just in that recent trailer over the past four years, we have tried to do what all of you have tried to do for years and that is put kids first. there is a lot of things that go into putting kids first and

making sure that you fix the schools. you all are on the front lines and you know them by -- by -- by heart. but one of the things i try and emphasize is we need the politicians to stand up. we need -- we know there is always going to be opposition towards fixing the schools and improving them but the politicians have to stop enabling those who are opposed to real reform from happening their way. and one man who, when he was in office and every day since, who has stood for those principles and told politicians of both parties that the future of this country depends on politicians being brave, being willing to put their careers on the line and doing the right things for kids is the former governor of florida, jeb bush. it is my honor to introduce him and to thank him for all of his

work on education reform for this country. [applause] >> thank you, mayor. thank you, mayor. thank you so much. please sit down. before the mayor departs, i just want to dell tell him on behalf of 500 people in this overcrowded room, first of all, we don't want the fire mar 1458 to come. -- the fire marshal to come. you and michelle rhee are the super man and super woman for thousands of kids d.c.. we appreciate it. [applause] thank you for that kind welcome. it is a joy for me to be here.

we welcome you to our third annual conference. we have people from 34 states. we have 134 lawmakers that are intermingling amongst themselves warning about really cool ideas they take back home to present to their lurs. we have over 560 attendees which is more than double what we had last year. we have over a dozen governors, state school officers, education policy leaders and the governor's offices and we have a ton of education reformers all across this country that have been doing the lord's work for a long time. i want to thank the sponsors for making it possible for us to gather together and when i thought about what i would talk about today, last night, i realized that this is an incredibly diverse group of people with a shared purpose. and in a world that seems to be

so divide about so many things, in fact, we almost feel compelled even when we agree on things, to at least have enough commonality of purpose where we would pause in the day at least and find common ground, here is group of people, democrats, republicans, conservatives, liberals that have enough in common as a diverse group and i think it is important to pause and say that is a good thing. in a country that needs ways to find common ground, for you all to come together and on a shared purpose, it is something that warms my heart. first, i think the two beliefs that really -- this common purpose are that education should be a national priority. doesn't mean it is going to be a federal program. just means that it is a nashville priority. it should be embedded in every policy conversation that we have across the country because there is no way for national

priority. there is no way to be competitive in a worrell that is increasingly so. it is a moral imperative that it be a national priority. as young people begin to dream about what they want to do, if they don't have the tools necessary to achieve those dreams, the societyal strains are going to be so huge that it will force us to turn back rather than move moving forward. secondly, we all agree, this diverse group of people, that we need systemic change, that focuses, that moves our education system to a student-centered system and away from the adults. so political leaders, state school officer, principals, teachers, anybody interested as an adult is secondary to this objective of assuring that children gain a year's worth of knowledge in a year's time. that sounds so simple and so common, but if you talk to the people in the trenches, that is really hard to do.

to change the system, to make it truly, to make it truly student-centered. so how are we going to do this? i'm actually incredibly optimistic. sthrr places where i'm not so optimistic but this is a place where i believe we're at a tipping point and the people in this room spread out across the land could make a huge difference going forward. it seems to me as a national priority, if we have this as national priority, then wesht make sure that children -- werked make sure that children gain knowledge all the way from k to grade 12 experience to college ready. that should be a national aspiration. we can send someone to the moon to respond the soviet challenge, it seems to me that more and more of our children can gain the power of knowledge. if we do that, we eliminate a tremendous amount of remedial costs that go into the process and ignore the reality of what

we have today. hundreds of millions, billions of dollars are spent in community colleges and our four-year universities for kids to take courses they didn't get right in high school. it means if we can get this right, the billions and billions of dollars in lost productivity will be available and reinvested in our competitive future and it means that the income gaps based on learning, which is the driver, i think for the next great challenge our country, begins to recede to create all sorts of opportunities for people. i believe that we can do this if we move away from the old way, and so think about it this way. we have 50 states since this is a -- a thing of national purpose and not a federal program. we have 50 state and if you take -- take the blob on this side and the perfect i dealic system on this. each is on a different point on

that line but most of them now are moving toward a child-centered system focused on custized learning. most -- on customized learning. for the first time in my adult lifetime i think we're close a tipping point where we will see continual progress if we stay focused on these two objectives of making sure that our system is child-centered and if we focus on making education a national priority. to get to that point, it seems to me we need to continue to embrace more school choice across the board and hybrid forms and forums that exist today, we should have a laser like focus on student achievement. we need to mobilize the incredible talents inside and outside the education system to assure we move to this

customized environment. third we need to eliminate social -- as a policy. the thing about the -- waiting for superman clip that just blows me away. how children feel good about themselves. how their self-esteem is at an all-time high. that we are definitely rank number one in the world in terms of self-esteem but when you measure how do we compare with the rest of the world in terms of jut pout and outcomes, we don't do so well. it is just a policy thats just insidious. if you start promoting children in third grade socially and don't hold them back and reinvent how you educate them, you have these tragedies unfold and long after it is too late, people begin to realize this is a tragedy. seems to me part of our strategy should be the ideal social promotion needs to be blown up. children learn at their own pace.

they advance whuns they achieve the de-- once they achieve the desired objectives. they don't get passed alongs thinking we're making them feel better and thinking that is a good policy. finally, i think we need to reward great teachers. great teachers create an environment where students learn and yet in america today we do not pay great teachers what they deserve. they get the same pay as mediocre teachers and tragically horrible teachers continue to teach in our classrooms. we need to have the courage to change that dynamic before it is too late. much has been accomplished in 2010. one area that i'm so excited about is the question of higher standards. the honest answer to the following question is where -- how many children are college or career he had when they finish or when they should be finishing 12th grade in america? the honest answer is 1/3. but because we have low asked,

we don't -- we don't have the honest result based on our data. 1/3 of our children graduate college are ready. 1/3 graduate high school more or less but they do so with the necessity of taking remedial course and 1/3 don't graduate at all. if education is a national priority, which it must be, those numbers are changeable. and thankfully, states voluntarily have come together to create common core standards, which is great that they are common because that creates scale and now ways to assess and advance the cause of learning. more importantly, the fact that they are common, for almost allstates they are significantly higher. this will be a reality check. when you get to this reality that 1/3 of the children are college or career ready, it will allow the reformers to take the lead and in proposing solutions to that great challenge that we have in our great country.

kudos to those leading the charge to bring about higher standards and the second element i think of great changes that have taken place in the last year is this notion that has been part of our history, as a nation, which is -- for innovation and reform. and in the last year, there have been tremendous reforms across the united states and my guess is with 80% of the populous in our country today having a new governor and many of them having new state school leaders in their states, there will be a burst of energy as it relates to reform for this year as well. spurred on by a race to the top, more states have focused on reform than ever before. dozens of states are not waiting for race to the top to bring about even more reform. last year, we challenged all the lawmakers and folks involved in policy to take one good idea from this conference and to steal it and implement

it in their home states. it appears that a lot of people took that idea to heart. families are allowed to choose the k-12 school that best meets the special needs of their child. florida created this program in 1999 and since then, arizona, georgia and utah have adopted similar problems. what are the rest of you waiting for? florida expanded their tax credit scholarship program. the law raised the scholarship amount as well as the amount that could be claimed in tax credits. more importantly, the budget is indexed to grow to meet the demand. i know that john is in the room somewhere. my expectation is that n that five to seven-year period, it is likely that 100,000 students in florida will be able to move to a private school of their parents choice based on this program. there were a few set-backs too. a bipartisan majority in

illinois senate passed and incredibly bold piece of legislation to provide vouchers to students. the measure barely failed in the statehouse. lawmakers extend choice to student and foster families and military families and to expand their own tax credit laws. several states adopted accountability measures that i believe will help them create a perpetual cycle of reform and improvement. arizona and indiana and louisiana all adopted the a-f letter scale to grade their schools. it sounds very simple, but i promise you, the a-f scale is a big part of any success because it is so clear and so transparent. you can hide away when you get an incomplete or a satisfactory. you don't know if that is a good thing or a bad thing. an f is an f and an a is an a. people strive for improvement.

having a clear grading system is if way to go and states have bn to embrace that. each state is implementing these policies in different ways to adapt to the uniqueness of their state. indiana did it by rule, which is what forceful deleersd when they are impatient with their legislatures. i don't think it really matters how to do it. the fact that they are aggressively pursuing it. literacy got a big boost as well. indiana, arizona, louisiana, those names are starting to sound familiar. in third grade, students transition from learning to read to reading to learn. i wish every state adopted a harder edge policy of no tolerance for functional ill literacy at any grade but third

grade is a good age to start. my hope is that we raise standards across the board. many states are requiring higher course work. for example, florida last year passed a law that required the state students to graduate and pass algebra one and two and geometry and biology and chemistry or physics. many states have not even gotten to that point and it seems to me if we have zero tolerance for mediocrity and raidsing the results, raising the standards and raising the bar for course work is another parse part of this renaissance of change that is necessary. if you look back on 2010, that i think defines the education reform movement in this last year was characterized by one big issue. changes the way teachers are

evaluated, compensated and retained. great teachers make great students. you can have all the great data you want from great professors and researchers from fine universities that can validate that but it is so intuitive. it is so obvious that great teachers will create great students. it seems to me we need to tear athe way vestiges of the past and reward them when they do a job well done. again, states across the country are leading the way in reform. 12 states, arizona, colorado, delaware, florida, illinois, louisiana, maryland, new york, oklahoma, rhode island, tennessee, washington and the district of columbia advanced meaningful reforms to transform the teaching profession. louisiana and colorado in my mind stand out in terms of the most comprehensive r678s in place and deserve credit for

the courageous efforts to begin that process, which brings me to one of thelessons of reform. state consist learn from each other. they can learn what works and what doesn't. welcome avoid the mistake of the past. there is no trademark on a good idea or accurate implementation. i hope from this conference, you have to contagion of reform and you can share your ideas and learn from others along the way. to where to from here? it seems to me my hope is that we make it common place that we advance the cause of customizeation through technology. at this conference, we will unveil what we hope will be the bench marks for digital learning that states can apply to implement policies, to tear down the barriers of entry for great teachers through technology and to advance the cause of accelerated learning. second, we need to accelerate new assessment tools to protect

accountability. accountability is tough. it is like my dad being told he had to eat his broccoli hen he was a kid. after a while it kind of wears you out when you're focused o on the harder edged nature of accountability. the current or older technologies as it relates to assessment make it harder to defend. you take the test in february or march and it is hard to say that you're trying to measure a year's worth of knowledge in a year's time when three more months of learning has taken place. using assess identicals that are more flexible -- assessments that are more flexible will protect the accountability, which is a huge element in assuring that every child matters in a state. the third thing that i think ought to be a goal of this group is to create policies that move away from funding seat time towards performance-based funding. that can apply across the board. a florida virtual school is a

great example when students complete the course and pass it, they get compensated. if they don't, they don't get paid. that sounds like a pretty radical idea, and across the spectrum of life that happens all the time and it could happen more often in education. why should title one money be sent to the state without any element of reform. it seems to me it could be used as a catalyst for reform that is performance-oriented. think about the way you could move your funding towards the expectations that you want and the results that you wand and there are a whole myriad of ways that we can begin that process of moving towards pompeii. one final point, back to the beginning of my speech, when there is common ground, we should pause and celebrate it and find creative ways to build on it. i'm excited that secretary arnie duncan is coming in to close out tomorrow.

we are concerned about the debt and the deficit. we have ways to solve it. liberals have a different view on that and different ways to solve it and they will have a huge food fight. stay away from the spew zone, so you don't get dirty. i hope -- i hope this one place, education, is a place where we can put aside the partisan divide and focus on the important things. i'm excited that i believe that that can happen. we have some fantastic school officers here today that will share with you their views about the reforms that thepts to implement. i hope secretary duncan creates a dialogue with them to be able to build the re-authorization of no child left behind in a way that is meaningful toed a strans cause of reform. i hope that republicans in congress work with the obama administration to make this with one place to frufe the american people the democrats

and republicans can put aside partisanship and still be true to their principles to be sure more children learn. [applause] if our reform -- if our -- if this conference is a catalyst for that, so be it, that makes me incredibly happy. thank you all very much for coming and enjoy these next two days. god bless. [applause] >> today on "washington journal," a discussion on the repeal of the don't ask, don't tell policy on gays in the military and how it will be implemented. our guest is anna mulrine. then sally quinn, founder of the "washington post" interactive forum. she stops by to talk about religion and politics.

"washington journal" takes your calls and emails live every morning starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> coming up on january 2, c-span's documentary, the supreme court, home to america's highest court. see inside the historic building and the beautiful places only available the justices and their staff. and hear from the cournt justices including our conversation with newest justice kagan. that's sunday, january 2 here on c-span. >> this weekend, q & a continues saturday and sunday with interviews from london. saturday, the labor party's diane abbot on the government's plans for budget cuts as well as her experiences as a minority in parliament. sunday, comparing the british and american fomples of government as we talk with -- forms of government as we talk with our guests.

q & a this saturday and sunday night at 8:00 on c-span. >> it is a three-day holiday weekend on book tv starting friday morning at 8:00 eastern. the latest nonfiction title with authors including jimmy carter, rick atkinson, and on afterwards, jane smiley on the man who changed the world though few have heard of him. the man who invented the computer. see the complete holiday schedule at booktv.org. >> next, a discussion on partisanism in american politics. from the no labels conference, this is an hour.